Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: will x 2

  1. #21
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: will x 2

    <[QUOTE=MrPedantic]I'm sorry, I was unclear. I'll see if I can find a form of words we can agree on. Perhaps:...>


    Sometimes, to express an inference:

    2. If MrP was the man you saw in the car at 6am, he can't have been the person who stole my bike at 6.01. >

    Yes, I'd call that an epistemic conditional (belief, etc.) and I'd do the same with:

    If he'll kill himself, he'll kill us.


    <b) 'Will' does not primarily express futurity; it simply means 'is prepared to'. In which case, #3 can only be taken as a modalised type 1. (But I'd suggest that this is more problematical than treating the sentence as an inference that doesn't need to 'obey the rules'.) >


    I agree that it the latter does not fit well into the 0-3 schema. But who gives a damn, eh? Better to also consider semantics and pragmatics, and not just syntax, when one is looking for a desired effect.

    Often, what appear to be rules are only hints. We need to use native speaker logic to guide us.

  2. #22
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPedantic
    Scenario:

    I'm having lunch with a friend. To my distress, he orders chicken feet. I am particularly averse to chicken feet, though I know it's a great delicacy. He gets stuck in. I express my repugnance:

    "If you'll eat chicken feet, you'll eat anything."

    MrP

    So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?

  3. #23
    MrPedantic is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by M56
    Often, what appear to be rules are only hints. We need to use native speaker logic to guide us.
    Indeed. On the other hand, the 'rules' often cause problems for some ESL students. ESL grammars have a tendency to deal with IF as "standard types 0-3 + exceptions"; whereas of the couple of thousand possible combinations of tense/mood/modal in IF statements, only a relatively small number are of the standard type.

    (But you know that as well as I do.)

    MrP

  4. #24
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by X Mode
    So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?
    With this kind of conditional (epistemic), it is often better to think of conclusions and not results.

    "If you'll eat chicken feet, I conclude that you'll eat anything."

  5. #25
    MrPedantic is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by X Mode
    So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?
    Hello XM

    Neither. I'd be disinclined to treat it as a cause and effect statement.

    "The fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet implies that you are prepared to eat anything."

    Or:

    "I deduce from the fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet the fact that you are prepared to eat anything."

    MrP

  6. #26
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPedantic
    Hello XM

    Neither. I'd be disinclined to treat it as a cause and effect statement.

    "The fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet implies that you are prepared to eat anything."

    Or:

    "I deduce from the fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet the fact that you are prepared to eat anything."

    MrP

    As a cause and effect statement, it would serve the purpose of showing a speaker's extreme surprise that someone would eat chicken feet.

    If he'll do that, he'll do anything.

    Do you know what I mean? It's kind of figurative, not to be taken literally.

  7. #27
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by M56
    With this kind of conditional (epistemic), it is often better to think of conclusions and not results.

    "If you'll eat chicken feet, I conclude that you'll eat anything."

    I agree. I can see that, but one could draw conclusions about results.

    If there's a lot of traffic, then that must be why he's late.

    There's a lot of traffic, so he's late.

    he's late - result - There's a lot of traffic, and I conclude that's why he's late.

    If there's traffic, he's always late.

  8. #28
    MrPedantic is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by X Mode
    I agree. I can see that, but one could draw conclusions about results.

    If there's a lot of traffic, then that must be why he's late.

    There's a lot of traffic, so he's late.

    he's late - result - There's a lot of traffic, and I conclude that's why he's late.

    If there's traffic, he's always late.
    Hmm. I suppose the main clause in every 'cause and effect' IF statement can be re-presented as a conclusion; but I'm not sure that every 'epistemic' IF embodies a cause and effect:

    1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

    (Which may be invalid.)

    2. If it's dark outside, it isn't noon => ?It isn't noon, so it's dark outside.

    (Which is invalid.)

    I suppose in such cases we're always at risk of 'affirming the antecedent':

    If P, then Q.

    Q, therefore P.

    MrP (or Q)

  9. #29
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: will x 2

    <I suppose in such cases we're always at risk of 'affirming the antecedent':

    If P, then Q.

    Q, therefore P.>

    Don't Queue before you Pee.

  10. #30
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: will x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPedantic
    Hmm. I suppose the main clause in every 'cause and effect' IF statement can be re-presented as a conclusion; but I'm not sure that every 'epistemic' IF embodies a cause and effect:

    1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

    (Which may be invalid.)

    MrP (or Q)
    1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

    (Which may be invalid.)
    That it may be invalid, to me, is not relevant. What is relevant here is the speaker's point of view based on his or her knowledge of the circumstance and all those involved.

    We're not talking about what is actually true, but what the speaker believes to be real and true.

    Joe knows Jen very well. He knows Jen is always on time and drives carefully.

    "If Jens late, she's stuck in traffic," said Joe.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Hotchalk